Preview
y Wy
We
c BM
J?
Marshall-Edward: Mikels, U.S. National,
Citizen of California and Private Living Sovereign ahem
Rh, a
Man By Special Appearance Rogatory bo
Owner of and Authorized Representative For
MARSHALL E. MIKELS ***-*#-8951
Mailing and Service Address:1625 Grant Road {LECDOUN of
Mount Shasta, California [96067] without the U.S
SAN WATEO
530-918-4162 / email biocorp@nctv.com
Residence Address not for Service or mailing:
yn ie 2016
(
115 15" Avenue, San Mateo, California [94402]
Choric
By ——
Superior Court of California County of San Mateo
10
NOTICE
11 Exempt form any fee charge or format requirement. Failure to file this document without charge is a
violation of due process and property rights of the beneficiary under the official’s oath of office contract as
12 fiduciary to the People and U.S. Constitution Trust
13
Case Number «
Ciy536936
14 Marshall-Edward: Mikels and
MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS
15 Verified Complaint For:
1 Common Law & Statutory Fraud, predatory
16 loan on a senior.
Plaintiff(s) 2. Common Law & Statutory Fraud, unenforceable
17 Vv.
contract, a violation of the statute of frauds.
18 3. Common Law & Statutory Fraud, a loan scam,
U.S. BANK, U.S. BANK NATIONAL no loan was made in a predatory fraud scheme
19 ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF on a senior.
OF THE HOLDERS OF THE ADJUSTABLE Common Law & Statutory Fraud on the court,
20 RATE MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-3 recording of fraudulent title.
21 ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE LOAN RESCISSION AND DAMAGES,
BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATE, 15 U.S.C. §1635, §1640, 12 C.F.R. §
22 SERIES 2007-3, PRINCIPALS, AGENTS & 226, Regulation Z.
DOES 1-100 et al 6 Common Law & Statutory Breach of Loan
23 Rescission Contract
7
24 Common Law Recoupment
Defendant(s) 8. Common Law Breach of Contract and
25 Fiduciary Duty to Constitution and Rights.
9. Common Law Trespass
26 10. Declaratory relief
27 11. Recovery of Stolen Property and Damages.
Demand for the Beneficiaries’ Unalienable Right to a
28 Common Law Jury Trial
Without Charse
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
1
Verified Common Law and Statutory Law Complaint
for relief of secured claims
From Secured Party Claimant: Marshall-Edward: Mikels
Delivered by respond to
Stacey L Mack [Notary Public]
205 Mount Shasta Blvd.,
Suite 400,
Mount Shasta CA 96067
To: Addressee(s)/Respondent(s):
ALL JUDGES, COURT CLERKS, RECORDER, OFFICERS AND SUPERVISORS
in OFFICIAL Capacity and in Individual Capacity
The public and/or private for profit Corporation(s) known as:
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063
This Presentment/Complaint delivered and served by personal service
12
13 To Debtor(s)/Respondent(s):
C/O U.S. BANK /U. S. Bank, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, ON
14 BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF THE ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-3
15 ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATE,
SERIES 2007-3, as Agent Accepting Service for the other DEFENDANT(S)/Defendant(s) listed
16 AGENTS & DOES 1-100 et al, including but not limited to:
17 RICHARD K. DAVIS/Richard K. Davis_ in official and individual capacity
JAN ESTEP/Jan Estep prior CEO in official and individual capacity
18 425 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202-3923
This Presentment/Complaint delivered and served by personal service
19
20
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL, NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
21
CLAIMS, CONTRACTS AND LAWS APPLICABLE
22
23 1 To all concerned, this is a verified common law and statutory complaint for relief of claims
24 due the Secured Party Claimant and Plaintiff for unlawful conduct and claims by the Defendant(s)
25
who claimed an ownership right as a purchaser, lender or holder in due course of a Loan Note
26
27 secured by a Deed of Trust in the Plaintiff's home and real property (“property”) described herein.
28 The alleged lender Defendant(s) failed to deliver the required loan disclosures under the Federal
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint/ Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
2
Truth and Lending Act (TILA) and the Plaintiff cancelled the Loan Note and Deed of Trust on
March 29, 2010 referenced herein as the Loan Rescission. The Defendant(s) were obligated under
the Federal TILA laws referenced herein to refund all money paid by the Plaintiff to the
Defendant(s) and others and record a release of lien on Plaintiff’s property within 20 days. If the
Defendant(s) disputed the Loan Rescission they were required to file a claim in court within the
twenty (20) day performance period. The Defendant’s failed or refused to perform their obligation
under the TILA Loan Rescission and failed to file a claim in a court of competent jurisdiction
10 within the 20 day performance period and thereafter under the TILA laws, forever gave up any claim
11
or defense after the 20 day performance period ending on April 17, 2010. However, the
12
Defendant(s) ignored the lawful cancellation of their alleged claim and security interest and filed an
13
14 unlawful detainer complaint in this court on April 1, 2011 in case No. CLJ 203244. Plaintiff was
15 forced to expend an enormous amount of time and money in filing defenses and in state and federal
16
court in an effort to stop the unlawful foreclosure and eviction and was forced out of his home and
17
18 confronted with appellate court decisions that twisted the Loan Rescission TILA laws into a totally
19 wrong fabrication designed to allow the Defendant(s) to unlawfully foreclose. Finally the United
20
States Supreme Court corrected the travesty in their decision in JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v.
21
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC January 13, 2015, which retroactively cancelled any claim
22
23 the Defendant(s) had in the Plaintiff's property, voided their Recorded title documents, voided their
24 unlawful detainer complaint and the unlawful eviction they conducted. See, the 9 to 0 Supreme
25
Court Decision in JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. COUNTRY WIDE HOME LOANS, INC
26
27 January 13, 2015 incorporated herein by this reference and attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
28 2. Now, the Plaintiffs Complaint seeks relief under Claims for the return of his property and
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
3
damages caused by the Defendant(‘s) under the United States Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 12
C.F.R. § 226,U.S.C, 15 U.S.C. §1635, §1640, Regulation Z, Loan Rescission as a Contract, the Oath
of Office as a Fiduciary Trust Contract, the California Constitution as a Trust Contract and the
Constitution for the United States of America as a Trust Contract , with performance thereunder
secured by a Security Agreement that the Addressee(s)/Respondent(s)/Defendant(s) are subject to.
The Secured Party Claimant, Affiant and Plaintiff was and is at all times mentioned herein a
recognized U.S. National Citizen of the Republic State of California and a party and beneficiary to
the Republic, State of California and the United States of America with allegiance to the State and
10
11 Federal Constitution Trust Contracts and beneficiary to the unalienable Rights therein. The matter
12 comprising the Claims herein arose on the land under commercial law, contract law, common law,
13
Statutes and codes by agreement, therefore the Secured Party Claimant and Plaintiff hereby secures
14
15 the Rights and remedies provided by these Contracts, the Uniform Commercial Code, Common Law
16 and Statutes/codes by agreement on the land and does not consent to Admiralty Law.
17
TIME LIMITATION TO BRING ACTION UNDER STATUTE AND COMMON LAW
18
3 The recent Supreme Court Decision in Larry D. JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v.
19
20 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al. confirmed that the Loan Rescission law operates as
21
it states; that the existing TILA 12 C.F.R. § 226.23 (d)(1) voids the deed of trust and loan note
22
(contract) automatically by operation of law upon the consumer’s mailing of a notice of loan
23
24 rescission to the creditor and the voided note and deed of trust securing the subject property and is
25 not reviewable by a court because the law voids these instruments automatically by operation of 12
26
C.F.R. § 226.23 (d)(1) and (d)(4) states: “The procedures outlined in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)((3)
27
28 of this section may be modified by court order.” There is no mention of modification of (d)(1) that
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
4
automatically voids the loan note and deed of trust because it was intended to be an automatic
operation of law to prevent the burden of the need for the consumer to file a law suit just to cancel a
loan contract. In fact, in all commercial contracts the party offered the contract can cancel it within
three (3) days, or in this case three (3) years when disclosures are not made, so it is common U.C.C.
law applied to all contracts not just loan rescission contracts. The procedures thereafter under 15
C.F.R. §1635 and 12 C.F.R. § 226.23 (d)(2) require the creditor, within 20 days, to return all money
that the borrower has paid to anyone including loan fees and record a release of lien on the subject
10 real property encumbered. After the creditor has performed their obligations under (d)(2) then the
11
borrower is obliged under (d)(3) to tender any money due the creditor. If for any reason the creditor
12
disputes the loan rescission procedures of (d)(2) or (d)(3) they must file a complaint in a court of
13
14 competent jurisdiction within the 20 day performance period under (d)(2). 12 C.F.R. § 226.23,
15 (4) states: “The procedures outlined in paragraphs (d) (2) and (3) of this section may be modified
16
by court order.” And, 15 U.S.C. §1635 (b) states: “The procedures prescribed by this subsection
17
18 shall apply except when otherwise ordered by a court” which is clear only applying to procedures of
19 unwinding or settlement and not the automatic voiding of the Note and Deed of Trust. If the creditor
20
fails to perform under § 226.23 (d)(2) or §1635 (b) and fails to file a complaint within the 20 day
21
performance period the creditor defaults in dishonor and gives up all claims and defenses thereafter
22
23 including disputes about the required disclosures or other issues and the matter becomes res
24 judicata and precluded from any review by any court thereafter. There is no tender requirement
25
under § 226.23 (d)(3) or §1635 (b) by the borrower since the creditor failed to perform their
26
27 obligations under (d)(2) or file any court action within the 20 day performance period. This is
28 standard contract law under the Uniform Commercial Code and this is what has occurred in the
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of Califomia San Mateo County
5
subject Case. The Supreme Court has said that the law speaks for itself and is straight forward, that
the Deed of Trust and Loan Note are void, in this case on March 29, 2010 when the Loan
rescission was mailed and the “bell was rung” once cancelled the Deed of Trust and Note
cannot be revived or the “bell un-rung”. To revive a cancelled Deed of Trust and Note one would
have to re-write a new Deed of Trust and Note and the borrower would have to sign it to execute it
for the new instruments to be lawful and legal and this was not done. Therefore, § 226.23 (d)(1)
and §1635 (b) voided the Note and Deed of Trust on March 29, 2010 and all of the Defendant’s
10 claims to the subject property thereafter, the Defendant(s) had twenty (20) days to perform or file
I
a complaint in court as to a disputed right to Rescission, disclosures or settlement procedures in
12
(d)(2), (d)(3) or §1635 (b) or default in dishonor by non-performance of their contract requirement
13
14 under TILA12 C.F.R. § 226.23, §1635 (b) and the Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Z. This is
15 what occurred and the Plaintiff seeks recovery of his home and damages. See, a copy of the Note
16
and Deed of Trust incorporated herein by this reference and attached hereto as Exhibits 2, and 3.
17
18 A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTS
19 4. In order for the Defendant(s) alleged lender(s) to receive money from the Federal Reserve
20
Bank(s) from the Bank‘s monetizing of the signature of the Plaintiff on the Loan Application, Note
21
and Deed of Trust the Defendant(s) enter into a commercial contract with the Federal Reserve Bank
22
23 and United States to perform obligations, one of which is 12 C.F.R. § 226.23 the Plaintiffs Right of
24
Rescission, which they did not honor in this case and just like in any law suit, which is in reality a
25
contract agreement between the opposing parties and court, if the served party receiving the contract
26
27 offer “summons” fails or refuses to respond, default occurs after 20 days in federal law or contract
28 law under the U.C.C. Therefore, since the Defendant(s) failed to perform their obligations within the
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
6
(d)(2) twenty (20) day period and failed to file a claim or dispute in court they defaulted in dishonor
of the contract and forever gave up any claim or defense thereafter. From that time the Defendant(s)
did not have standing to foreclose either judicially or non-judicially or to file any court action
including the subject unlawful detainer and eviction on September 6, 2012 of Affiant, Plaintiff and
his rental tenants. See, “NOFICE TO VACATE”:08/08/2012 and “WRIT 07/25/2012 Exhibit A.
THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION TO SUE TO ENFORCE THE VOIDED NOTE
AND DEED OF TRUST; IT IS RES JUDICATA AFTER THE 20 DAY PERFORMANCE
PERIOD UPON THE CREDITOR’S DEFAULT
10 5 The Supreme Court’s Decision states on page 26-27 “When Congress wishes to limit the
il
time for filing suit by means of a statute of repose, it does so expressly.” Jn referring to the time
12
limits in 12 C.F.R. § 226.23 or 15 U.S.C. §1635, “Jt talks not of a suit’s commencement but of a
13
14 right’s duration, which it addresses in terms so straightforward as to render any limitation on the
15 time for seeking a remedy superfluous.” Therefore, any statute of limitation is in reference to
16
damages caused by the creditor’s violation of the law. The matter of the voided Note and Deed of
17
18 Trust is not for review by a court and therefore not subject to a statute of limitation, it does not
19 automatically un-void itself if a suit is not filed within a period of time. The “ringing of the bell
20
occurred by the mailing of notice of Loan Rescission which automatically voided the Note and Deed
21
of Trust and thereafter there is no “un-ringing of the bell it is not subject to dispute or court review
22
23 or a statute of limitation that somehow reverses the “ringing of the bell and restores the Note and
24
Deed of Trust to its former un-voided status. Also, the issue of disclosures either provided or not
25
provided by the Defendant(s) cannot be used to “un-ring the bell” or restore the voided Note and
26
27 Deed of Trust after the 20 day performance period and Defendant(s) failure to file a dispute in court
- ~
28 within that time period.
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint/ Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
7
THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION JANUARY 13, 2015 STARTS THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATION FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
6. The Supreme Court’s Decision January 13, 2015 starts the statute of limitation for
damages and other claims for relief subject to tolling from the date of the Supreme Court’s Decision
in Larry D. JESINOSKL, et wx Petitioners v. COUNTRY WIDE HOME LOANS, INC.), et al. on
January 13, 2015.
THE ONE YEAR TIME TO FILE ACTION FOR DAMAGES WAS COMPLIED WITH
7 The Loan Rescission was delivered on March 29, 2010, which automatically voided the
10
Loan Note and Deed of Trust on March 29, 2010, the Defendant’s had no standing to bring
11
12 any court action twenty (20) days later after their non-performance on April 17, 2010.
13
However, the Defendant(s) ignored that fact and waited just over a year before filing their
14
Unlawful Detainer on April 1, 2011, thinking that the Plaintiff lost his Right to enforce Rescission,
15
16 however, that one year statute only applies to the Plaintiff seeking damages caused by the
17 Defendant’s non-compliance with their obligations under 226.23 (d)(2) and (d)(3) or § 1635, it
18
did not relieve Defendant(s) of the effect of (d)(1) or § 1635 in automatically voiding the
19
20 security instrument Deed of Trust, Loan Note, and their standing to foreclose or file a court
21 action after of April 17, 2010. And, it did not relieve Defendant(s) of the one year statute for
22
Plaintiff to bring an action for damages because the date of occurrence of the violation by
23
Defendant(s) was April 5, 2011, the date of posting service of the unlawful detainer. Thereafter,
24
25 Plaintiff(s) preserved the one year statute under 15 U.S.C. §1635, §1640 by filing an answer to
26 Defendant(‘s) unlawful detainer and a demand for a jury trial on April 18, 2011, and a long series of
27
filings and oppositions to Defendant’s motions for summary judgment without effect, due to serious
28
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
8
conflicts of interest in the state court, which ultimately forced Plaintiff to remove the Defendant’s
Unlawful Detainer case CLJ 203244 to theUnited States District Court, Northern District of
California case C11-04687 Ics on September 21, 2011 and again on January 4, 2012 and to file a
complaint in that U.S. Court, Case Number c: 12-0056 EMC against the Defendant(s) in an effort to
stop the unlawful eviction and taking of the Plaintiff(‘s) home by the Defendant(s). See, the
“NOTICE Of CANCELATION OF LOAN & AUTOMATIC VOIDING OF THE DEED OF
TRUST” dated March 29, 2010 and Proof of Delivery, incorporated herein by this reference and
10 attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
il
THE BANKS AND COURTS USE INCORRECT CASE LAW
12 TO BLOCK LOAN RESCISSION
13 8 During this time period the lower court’s produced incorrect case law that misconstrued the
14
plainly stated loan rescission law and its clear effect in automatically voiding the contract note and
15
16 security instrument upon notice. These incorrect case laws created a non-existent need for
17 Plaintiff(s) to perfect the loan rescission by a misconstrued requirement that the consumer file a suit
18
within the three year period provided for the consumer to perfect or obtain the right to a loan
19
rescission, which was totally opposite of the plain language and intent of the law. The Defendant’s
20
21 and the U.S. District Court in Plaintiff's MIKELS v. U.S. BANK, Case c: 12-0056 EMC, used the
22
lower appellate court’s wrong decisions which made it appear that it was Plaintiff's obligation to
23
bring suit to exercise Plaintiff’s right to Loan Rescission within three years from the date of
24
25 consummation of the loan July 11, 2007 no later that July 11, 2010, claiming that Plaintiff's
26 complaint c: 12-0056 EMC filed on January 4, 2012 was over the three year period and too late and
27
therefore could not exercise loan rescission (although the court acknowledged a timely notice of
28
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint/ Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
9
loan rescission) however dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice by order of Edward M. Chin
on April 12, 2012, D.C. Doc. 42, on the basis of a complaint filed after the three year period which
was incorrectly defined as a statute of limitation, when plainly it was not. As the Supreme Court
stated in JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., there was no
statute of limitation (repose) for the consumer to file suit for loan rescission, only a time period for
exercising the right. Any requirement for the consumer to bring an action to obtain a loan rescission
is non-existent and would nullify the law’s intent of an automatic voiding, just as in any 3 day right
10 to cancel any contract. The dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint was a gross error that the Supreme
11
Court corrected in JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners y. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. and
12
which nullifies the grounds the dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff's federal complaint and voids it.
13
14 Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision corrected the law used in the order of dismissal which in
15 effect nullified the Order by Edward M. Chin of April 12, 2012.
16
PLAINTIFF DID APPEAL THE DISTRICT COURT ORDER, HOWEVER THE
17 SUPREME COURT’S DECISION OVERRULED THE APPEAL
18
9, Plaintiff did appeal the Edward M. Chin District Court Order of dismissal of Plaintiff's
19
20 federal complaint but it was never prosecuted because the District Court record had errors in it that
21 the Plaintiff requested corrected which was never done. The court secretary filed a document stating
22
that Plaintiff needed to make a motion to correct the record however never mailed the notice to the
23
Plaintiff which the court record showed no proof of service, which is documented. The Appeals
24
25 court issued an order of dismissal and the Plaintiff voided it by non-consent, therefore the appeal is
26 still lawfully standing by the Appeal Court’s Default. However, the Supreme Court’s Decision in
27
JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC makes the Plaintiff's
28
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
10
Appeal moot because it intervened with a correction of the error by the Chin Court as referenced.
A TOLLING WAS CREATED BY THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION
10. Under §1640 “any action under this section may be brought in any United States district
court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date of the
occurrence of the violation” therefore the Supreme Court’s decision created:
1, A tolling of one year after the Supreme Court’s decision January 13, 2015 for the
Plaintiff to file a complaint for damages under §1640 for Defendant’s violations of (TILA),
10 12 C.F.R. § 226,U.S.C, 15 U.S.C. §1635.
11
2, There is no time limit to file a complaint for a claim enforcing Loan Rescission and
12
voiding of the Loan Note and Deed of Trust effective March 29, 2010 and res judicata
13
14 (precluded from any court review) effective April 17, 2010, because the Defendant’s never
15 had any lawful or legal right to foreclose, evict or take possession of Plaintiff's property
16
after their default in dishonor April 17, 2010 and the Defendant’s were precluded from
17
18 filing any action in court due to their lack of standing from April 17, 2010 thereafter.
19 3. There is no time limit for Plaintiff to file for an unlawful detainer to evict the occupants
20
and Defendant(s) from his property and home located at 115 15 Avenue, San Mateo,
21
California, because the Defendant(s) never had lawful or legal ownership of the property
22
23 and are unlawfully occupying it since September 6, 2012 until present the present date, by
24 trespass by the use of unlawful actions in the state and federal courts, which was declared
25
so by the Supreme Court’s Decision in JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v.
26
27 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC on January 13, 2015.
28 4. Defendant filed a complaint in federal court for enforcement of the voided Note and
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
i
Deed of Trust on January 4, 2012 within one year of the occurrence of the Defendant’s
filing of their unlawful detainer on April 1, 2011, the date it became known that the
Defendant’s were not honoring the Loan Rescission. And, Plaintiff's federal complaint was
dismissed by error of the Chin Court and the Plaintiff Appealed and the Appeals Court
errored in dismissing the Appeal without providing for a corrected record by error of the
Court in not serving Plaintiff/Appellant with proper notice and the dismissal was voided by
non-consent. However, the Supreme Court’s Decision corrected and made moot the District
10 Court and the Appeals’ Court’s actions, tolled and preserved the time from Plaintiff's
11
federal complaint filing on January 4, 2012 and started the clock running for any of
12
Plaintiff's claims contained herein effective January 13, 2015.
13
14 5. Plaintiff my sue within one year from January 13, 2015 for recovery of damages
15 suffered by Plaintiff under TILA 15 U.S.C. 1640 (a) and (e) caused by the Defendant(s)
16
who violated 226.23 (d)(2), (d)(3) or § 1635, “any creditor who fails to comply with any
17
18 requirement imposed under this part, including any requirement under section 1635 of this
19 title , or part D or E of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such
20
person in an amount equal to the sum of— (1) any actual damage sustained by such person
21
as a result of the failure;” and other damages not shown here. And, “(e) Jurisdiction of
22
23 courts; limitations on actions; Except as provided in the subsequent sentence, any
24 action under this section may be brought in any United States district court, or in any other
25
court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date of the occurrence of the
26
27 violation.” Therefore the Plaintiff has one year to file a court action under TILA for
28 damages as stated in 15 U.S. Code § 1640 referenced above.
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint/ Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
12
6. Plaintiff may sue for fraud, breach of contract or other claim with the appropriate
statute of limitation period beginning with the date of the Supreme Court’s Decision in
JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. January 14,
2015.
1* Claim
For Relief Listed Under Claim Five
For relief under Loan Rescission TILA, 12 C.F.R. § 226,U.S.C, 15 U.S.C. §1635, §1640,
Regulation Z confirmed in the decision of the United States Supreme Court in 135 S.Ct. 790 (2015)
10
Larry D. JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al. No. 13-
ll
12 684. Decided January 13, 2015. The return of Plaintiffs property and damages caused by the
13
unlawful acts of Defendant(s). The tolling of the time in which to file an action for damages under
14
TILA ending January 13, 2016. The tolling of time beginning January 2015 the start of the statute of
15
16 limitation applicable to other claims.
17 2" Claim
18 For Breach of Loan Rescission Contract occurred upon unlawful forced eviction and taking of
19 real property by U.S. Bank Defendant, agents, judicial officers and the San Mateo County Sheriff on
20
September 6, 2012. Four year statute of limitation beginning with decision in 135 S.Ct. 790 (2015)
21
Larry D. JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. COUNTRY WIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al. No. 13-
22
23 684.Supreme Court of United States Decided January 13, 2015. No statute of limitation under
24
common law
25
3° Claim
26
27 For Recoupment under common law occurred upon unlawful forced eviction and taking of real
28 property by U.S. Bank Defendant, agents, judicial officers and the San Mateo County Sheriff on
Marshali-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
13
September 6, 2012. No statute of limitation.
4" Claim
For Trespass Common Law Tort by Defendant(s) trespass onto the real property owned by
Plaintiff occurring upon unlawful forced eviction and taking of real property by U.S. Bank
Defendant, its agents, Addressee(s)/Respondent(s) judicial officers and the San Mateo County
Sheriff on September 6, 2012. No time limit for prosecution of claim under common law. Under
statutory claim time is tolled from the decision in 135 S.Ct. 790 (2015) Larry D. JESINOSKI, et ux.,
10 Petitioners v. COUNTRY WIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al. No. 13-684.Supreme Court of United
11
States Decided January 13, 2015.
12
13
CLAIM
14 THIS COMPLAINT STATES CLAIMS, FACTS AND EVIDENCE IN AFFIDAVIT FORM
AND REQUESTS PROOF OF CLAIMS FROM THE OPPOSITION AND COURT.
15 ANY FACT, CLAIM OR EVIDENCE LEFT STANDING, UN-REBUTTED BY NON-
16 RESPONSE FORMS AN ADMISSION AND ESTABLISHED FACT AND CLAIM THAT IS
SECURED BY A SECURITY AGREEMENT AND IS A FINAL JUDGMENT IN A
17 COURT OF RECORD
18
11. ‘Adltressee(s)/Respondent(), you are requested to provide Proof of Claims that would
19
20 rebut the Affiant’s claims stated below or the following allegations, evidence, information and
21 belief will be established as fact by the prima facie evidence of this Affidavit which form a case
22
and court of record: that, the Rights, laws, duties, obligations, claims, evidence, information,
23
teferences, public records and belief contained in this Verified Common Law Complaint and in the
24
25 Affidavit of Marshall-Edward: Mikels below including attached exhibits and in any referenced
26 Affidavits unless rebutted by an opposing affidavit by an individual with personal first hand
27
knowledge signed in ink under penalty of perjury and delivered within the time provided will stand
28
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
14
as fact and will be final judgment in a Court of Record and secured by a Security Agreement
superior to all courts and protected from impairment by Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution for
the United States of America 1787-1789 and the Oath of the officers of this Court as fiduciaries to
the people/People and Constitution for the United States a Trust Contract.
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and
reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender
in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the
obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.”
THEREFORE, Provide proof to rebut the information, evidence, allegations and claims
10
herein or it will stand as fact in this Affidavit as a prima facie case in a Court of Record that:
11
12
AFFIDAVIT
13
“Indeed, no more than affidavits are necessary to make the prima
14 facie case.” United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d, 526, 536 (7" Cir. 1981);
Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982
15S
16 1 To all concerned, the undersigned Affiant, Marshall-Edward: Mikels, does solemnly swear,
17 declare and state as follows:
18
2 Affiant is competent to state the matters set forth herein.
19
3 Affiant has personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.
20
21 4. All the facts herein are true, correct and complete, admissible as evidence and if called upon
22 as a witness, Affiant will testify to their veracity.
23
5 I, Marshall-Edward: Mikels am not a corporation or a public entity.
24
25 6. Affiant and Plaintiff do not consent to any presumption used to establish jurisdiction, venue
26 or to impose a corporate identity or citizenship onto Marshall-Edward: Mikels or the Plaintiff (defined
27
in this case as a non-corporate entity private U.S. National) or made a trustee of any trust. The Affiant
28
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
15
does not consent to any extraneous.agreement, license, certificate, contract or trust agreement that
would change his status as a living man and one of the sovereign people/People that is a party and
beneficiary to the Constitution for the United States of America 1787-1789, who is a U.S. National
and Citizen Sovereign living in the Republic/State of California one of the several states comprising
the United States of America without the corporate UNITED STATES or other name, without the
District of Columbia/DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, as a U.S. National with unalienable Rights
inherent from the Creator and protected by the fiduciary’s Oath of the officers of this court and the
10 Addressee(s)/ Respondent(s) whether a private, public, government, corporate, foreign or domestic
11
entity.
12
CLAIM
13
THAT THE AFFIANT/ PLAINTIFF IS A U.S. NATIONAL POSSESSING UNALIENABLE
14 RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION/TRUST
15 7. Addressee(s)/Respondent(s), you are requested to provide Proof of Claims that would
16
rebut the Affiant’s claims stated below or the following allegations, evidence, information and
17
18 belief will be established as fact by the prima facie evidence of this Affidavit which form a case
19 and court of record: that, by Agreement of the United States/UNITED STATES, the U.S.
20
Department of State, the Secretary of State JOHN F. KERRY Esquire, official Secretary of State of
21
the United States/UNITED STATES, John F. Kerry Individual, the State of California/STATE OF
22
23 CALIFORNIA and the Secured Party Affiant Marshall-Edward: Mikels’ execution on November 16,
24 2015 of a Security Agreement referenced below, the Affiant Marshall-Edward: Mikels is determined
25
to be by established fact a U.S. National / Citizen Sovereign of the Republic / State of California and
26
27 one of the Sovereign people/People party and beneficiary to the Constitution of or for the
28 united/United States of America 1787-1789, the Amendments thereto up to the original lawfully
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
16
ratified December 9, 1812, 13" Amendment and none thereafter, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration
of Independence 1776 and all Treaties, binding the said parties to a SECURITY AGREEMENT
NON-NEGOTIABLE/NON-TRANSFERABLE (15 USSEC Speculation Account) Acct. No.
CAFV-UPOC-CORJ CLAIM # 5679, Private/Public Agreement of the parties dated November 16,
2015. The contracting parties are the Secured Party: Marshall-Edward; Mikels and the
Addressee(s)/Respondent(s) JOHN F. KERRY Esquire, official Secretary of State of the United
States, and John F. Kerry Individual, United States Department of State, The United States/UNITED
10 STATES and its Executives in Official and in Individual Capacity, the franchise subdivisions
il
thereof including the State of California/STATE OF CALIFORNIA and the San Francisco Passport
12
Agency, its Owners and Executives in Official and Individual Capacity 44123 Mercure Circle P.O.
13
14 Box 1143 Sterling, Virginia 20166 and others that may be added by amendment. The establish
15 Claim of a U.S. National by the Secured Party is memorialized in that Security Agreement as
16
follows:
17
18 “ESTABLISHED CLAIM AND FACT
AFFIANT/CLAIMANT/SECURED PARTY IS A U.S. NATIONAL
19 A CITIZEN SOVEREIGN OF THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC AND NOT A
CITIZEN/NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
20
GOVERNMENT CORPORATION AND/OR A
21 14™ AMENDMENT CITIZEN”
22 “25. The Addressee(s)/Respondent(s), failed or refused to provide the requested Proof
23 of Claims that would rebut the Affiant’s claims stated herein therefore the following is
established as fact by the prima facie evidence of the Affiant’s Affidavit which form a
24 case and Court of Record: that, on August 17, 2015 Affiant presented a contract offer
25 entitled “APPLICATION FOR U.S. PASSPORT DS-11” to the U.S. Department of State for
a passport for a U. S. National and attached an executed Affidavit by Affiant/Secured Party
26 dated August 14, 2015 of “U.S. National” as a Citizen of the California Republic/state as
27 defined above and a birth certificate showing place of mother’s delivery of
Claimant/Secured Party. The Affidavit was sworn by Jurat administered and notarized by a
28 California Secretary of State of Notary Valare A. Wiley/VALARE A. WILEY that attested to
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
17
the established fact that Affiant Marshall-Edward: Mikels was/is one of the people/People as
a US. National since October 21, 1946 at 12:14 am, by natural delivery from his mother in
the Republic of California, City and County of San Francisco. Affiant has made a claim that
nullifies any presumption of a franchise or corporate entity based on a “CERTIFICATE OF
LIVE BIRTH” or other document and therefore is not a citizen of the UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CORPORATION. Affiant has an established claim to a citizen
of the California Republic one of the States of the United States of America by delivery from
his mother in the Republic of California by parents of U.S. Nationals that were themselves
delivered by their mother in the State of Indiana and State of Oklahoma that are foreign
states to the District of Columbia United States Government/Corporation and who resided
for a time in the United States. Affiant has sworn allegiance to the Constitution for the
United States of America as one of the sovereign people/People referenced in the
Constitution and a beneficiary thereto and Affiant’s Affidavit attached to his passport
contract offer/application that was delivered which stated in part:
10
“6,
Effective October 21, 1946 I, Marshall-Edward: Mikels Claimed Secured
11
Party/Creditor/Owner of the Landed Estate MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS / ***-**.8951,
12 CERTIFICATE OF VITAL RECORD CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH ***22 dated OCT 30, 1946 CUSIP No. *****2685,
13
#*44*2684, F****9417 or other number or version of entity name/trusts including all
14 bonds, trusts, property and social security trust(s) funds in connection thereto. Affiant is the
Authorized Representative of said entities. Affiant is the beneficiary under a contract and
15 Security Agreement with the United States/UNITED STATES, the State of California/STATE
16 OF CALIFORNIA and all others concerned to be acknowledged and classified as a U.S.
National and state citizen of the republic state of California by the established fact of being
17 born in that state by parents that were nationals of the foreign states of Oklahoma and
18 Indiana. Therefore, Affiant is one of the sovereign people born in the republic state of
California that is one of the several states comprising the united States of America under
19 Trust of the Constitution of the United States of America 1787-1789, the Bill of Rights and
20 Declaration of Independence 1776, Treaties and trade agreements of the United States of
America and therefore not within the United States/UNITED STATES, the District of
21 Columbia or any of its possessions and not a Citizen of United States/UNITED STATES.
Therefore, Affiant claims his right to a PASSPORT United States of America under
22
classification as a U.S. national/National under:
23
308 NATIONALS BUT NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
24
SEC. 308, [8 U.S.C. 1408] Unless otherwise provided in section 301 of this title, the
25 Sollowing shail be nationals, but not citizens of the United States at birth:
(2) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents
26 both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States, and have had a
27 residence in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth
of such person;
28
Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A.
Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to
Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County
18
See, a certified copy of the “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH” from the “STATE OF
CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’ dated OCT 30, 1946 REGISTRAR’S NO.
14622 incorporated herein by this reference and attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
The above referenced contract Security Agreement is recorded in the records of the U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California Case No. 3:14-CV -02883 Court Docket No.
14 and in Case No. 14 2879 MEJ MMC Doc..No. 11 & 20 and in Case No. 3:14-CV -02883
KAW-JD, Doc. No. 14 & 20 incorporated herein by this reference.”
Therefore, by agreement Marshall-Edward: Mikels is a U.S. National Citizen Sovereign of the
Republic State of California that possesses unalienable Rights inherent from the Creator which
Rights and Sovereignty are to be recognized and applied to MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS or
any version or abbreviation of the all Cap entity name or Trust by virtue of Marshall-Edward:
10
1 Mikels’ ownership and claim of said name and Trust(s) including all the bonds
Preview
y Wy We c BM J? Marshall-Edward: Mikels, U.S. National, Citizen of California and Private Living Sovereign ahem Rh, a Man By Special Appearance Rogatory bo Owner of and Authorized Representative For MARSHALL E. MIKELS ***-*#-8951 Mailing and Service Address:1625 Grant Road {LECDOUN of Mount Shasta, California [96067] without the U.S SAN WATEO 530-918-4162 / email biocorp@nctv.com Residence Address not for Service or mailing: yn ie 2016 ( 115 15" Avenue, San Mateo, California [94402] Choric By —— Superior Court of California County of San Mateo 10 NOTICE 11 Exempt form any fee charge or format requirement. Failure to file this document without charge is a violation of due process and property rights of the beneficiary under the official’s oath of office contract as 12 fiduciary to the People and U.S. Constitution Trust 13 Case Number « Ciy536936 14 Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS 15 Verified Complaint For: 1 Common Law & Statutory Fraud, predatory 16 loan on a senior. Plaintiff(s) 2. Common Law & Statutory Fraud, unenforceable 17 Vv. contract, a violation of the statute of frauds. 18 3. Common Law & Statutory Fraud, a loan scam, U.S. BANK, U.S. BANK NATIONAL no loan was made in a predatory fraud scheme 19 ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF on a senior. OF THE HOLDERS OF THE ADJUSTABLE Common Law & Statutory Fraud on the court, 20 RATE MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-3 recording of fraudulent title. 21 ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE LOAN RESCISSION AND DAMAGES, BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATE, 15 U.S.C. §1635, §1640, 12 C.F.R. § 22 SERIES 2007-3, PRINCIPALS, AGENTS & 226, Regulation Z. DOES 1-100 et al 6 Common Law & Statutory Breach of Loan 23 Rescission Contract 7 24 Common Law Recoupment Defendant(s) 8. Common Law Breach of Contract and 25 Fiduciary Duty to Constitution and Rights. 9. Common Law Trespass 26 10. Declaratory relief 27 11. Recovery of Stolen Property and Damages. Demand for the Beneficiaries’ Unalienable Right to a 28 Common Law Jury Trial Without Charse Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 1 Verified Common Law and Statutory Law Complaint for relief of secured claims From Secured Party Claimant: Marshall-Edward: Mikels Delivered by respond to Stacey L Mack [Notary Public] 205 Mount Shasta Blvd., Suite 400, Mount Shasta CA 96067 To: Addressee(s)/Respondent(s): ALL JUDGES, COURT CLERKS, RECORDER, OFFICERS AND SUPERVISORS in OFFICIAL Capacity and in Individual Capacity The public and/or private for profit Corporation(s) known as: 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 11 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063 This Presentment/Complaint delivered and served by personal service 12 13 To Debtor(s)/Respondent(s): C/O U.S. BANK /U. S. Bank, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE, ON 14 BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF THE ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-3 15 ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATE, SERIES 2007-3, as Agent Accepting Service for the other DEFENDANT(S)/Defendant(s) listed 16 AGENTS & DOES 1-100 et al, including but not limited to: 17 RICHARD K. DAVIS/Richard K. Davis_ in official and individual capacity JAN ESTEP/Jan Estep prior CEO in official and individual capacity 18 425 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202-3923 This Presentment/Complaint delivered and served by personal service 19 20 NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL, NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT 21 CLAIMS, CONTRACTS AND LAWS APPLICABLE 22 23 1 To all concerned, this is a verified common law and statutory complaint for relief of claims 24 due the Secured Party Claimant and Plaintiff for unlawful conduct and claims by the Defendant(s) 25 who claimed an ownership right as a purchaser, lender or holder in due course of a Loan Note 26 27 secured by a Deed of Trust in the Plaintiff's home and real property (“property”) described herein. 28 The alleged lender Defendant(s) failed to deliver the required loan disclosures under the Federal Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint/ Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 2 Truth and Lending Act (TILA) and the Plaintiff cancelled the Loan Note and Deed of Trust on March 29, 2010 referenced herein as the Loan Rescission. The Defendant(s) were obligated under the Federal TILA laws referenced herein to refund all money paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant(s) and others and record a release of lien on Plaintiff’s property within 20 days. If the Defendant(s) disputed the Loan Rescission they were required to file a claim in court within the twenty (20) day performance period. The Defendant’s failed or refused to perform their obligation under the TILA Loan Rescission and failed to file a claim in a court of competent jurisdiction 10 within the 20 day performance period and thereafter under the TILA laws, forever gave up any claim 11 or defense after the 20 day performance period ending on April 17, 2010. However, the 12 Defendant(s) ignored the lawful cancellation of their alleged claim and security interest and filed an 13 14 unlawful detainer complaint in this court on April 1, 2011 in case No. CLJ 203244. Plaintiff was 15 forced to expend an enormous amount of time and money in filing defenses and in state and federal 16 court in an effort to stop the unlawful foreclosure and eviction and was forced out of his home and 17 18 confronted with appellate court decisions that twisted the Loan Rescission TILA laws into a totally 19 wrong fabrication designed to allow the Defendant(s) to unlawfully foreclose. Finally the United 20 States Supreme Court corrected the travesty in their decision in JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. 21 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC January 13, 2015, which retroactively cancelled any claim 22 23 the Defendant(s) had in the Plaintiff's property, voided their Recorded title documents, voided their 24 unlawful detainer complaint and the unlawful eviction they conducted. See, the 9 to 0 Supreme 25 Court Decision in JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. COUNTRY WIDE HOME LOANS, INC 26 27 January 13, 2015 incorporated herein by this reference and attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 28 2. Now, the Plaintiffs Complaint seeks relief under Claims for the return of his property and Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 3 damages caused by the Defendant(‘s) under the United States Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 12 C.F.R. § 226,U.S.C, 15 U.S.C. §1635, §1640, Regulation Z, Loan Rescission as a Contract, the Oath of Office as a Fiduciary Trust Contract, the California Constitution as a Trust Contract and the Constitution for the United States of America as a Trust Contract , with performance thereunder secured by a Security Agreement that the Addressee(s)/Respondent(s)/Defendant(s) are subject to. The Secured Party Claimant, Affiant and Plaintiff was and is at all times mentioned herein a recognized U.S. National Citizen of the Republic State of California and a party and beneficiary to the Republic, State of California and the United States of America with allegiance to the State and 10 11 Federal Constitution Trust Contracts and beneficiary to the unalienable Rights therein. The matter 12 comprising the Claims herein arose on the land under commercial law, contract law, common law, 13 Statutes and codes by agreement, therefore the Secured Party Claimant and Plaintiff hereby secures 14 15 the Rights and remedies provided by these Contracts, the Uniform Commercial Code, Common Law 16 and Statutes/codes by agreement on the land and does not consent to Admiralty Law. 17 TIME LIMITATION TO BRING ACTION UNDER STATUTE AND COMMON LAW 18 3 The recent Supreme Court Decision in Larry D. JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. 19 20 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al. confirmed that the Loan Rescission law operates as 21 it states; that the existing TILA 12 C.F.R. § 226.23 (d)(1) voids the deed of trust and loan note 22 (contract) automatically by operation of law upon the consumer’s mailing of a notice of loan 23 24 rescission to the creditor and the voided note and deed of trust securing the subject property and is 25 not reviewable by a court because the law voids these instruments automatically by operation of 12 26 C.F.R. § 226.23 (d)(1) and (d)(4) states: “The procedures outlined in paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)((3) 27 28 of this section may be modified by court order.” There is no mention of modification of (d)(1) that Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 4 automatically voids the loan note and deed of trust because it was intended to be an automatic operation of law to prevent the burden of the need for the consumer to file a law suit just to cancel a loan contract. In fact, in all commercial contracts the party offered the contract can cancel it within three (3) days, or in this case three (3) years when disclosures are not made, so it is common U.C.C. law applied to all contracts not just loan rescission contracts. The procedures thereafter under 15 C.F.R. §1635 and 12 C.F.R. § 226.23 (d)(2) require the creditor, within 20 days, to return all money that the borrower has paid to anyone including loan fees and record a release of lien on the subject 10 real property encumbered. After the creditor has performed their obligations under (d)(2) then the 11 borrower is obliged under (d)(3) to tender any money due the creditor. If for any reason the creditor 12 disputes the loan rescission procedures of (d)(2) or (d)(3) they must file a complaint in a court of 13 14 competent jurisdiction within the 20 day performance period under (d)(2). 12 C.F.R. § 226.23, 15 (4) states: “The procedures outlined in paragraphs (d) (2) and (3) of this section may be modified 16 by court order.” And, 15 U.S.C. §1635 (b) states: “The procedures prescribed by this subsection 17 18 shall apply except when otherwise ordered by a court” which is clear only applying to procedures of 19 unwinding or settlement and not the automatic voiding of the Note and Deed of Trust. If the creditor 20 fails to perform under § 226.23 (d)(2) or §1635 (b) and fails to file a complaint within the 20 day 21 performance period the creditor defaults in dishonor and gives up all claims and defenses thereafter 22 23 including disputes about the required disclosures or other issues and the matter becomes res 24 judicata and precluded from any review by any court thereafter. There is no tender requirement 25 under § 226.23 (d)(3) or §1635 (b) by the borrower since the creditor failed to perform their 26 27 obligations under (d)(2) or file any court action within the 20 day performance period. This is 28 standard contract law under the Uniform Commercial Code and this is what has occurred in the Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to Superior Court of the State of Califomia San Mateo County 5 subject Case. The Supreme Court has said that the law speaks for itself and is straight forward, that the Deed of Trust and Loan Note are void, in this case on March 29, 2010 when the Loan rescission was mailed and the “bell was rung” once cancelled the Deed of Trust and Note cannot be revived or the “bell un-rung”. To revive a cancelled Deed of Trust and Note one would have to re-write a new Deed of Trust and Note and the borrower would have to sign it to execute it for the new instruments to be lawful and legal and this was not done. Therefore, § 226.23 (d)(1) and §1635 (b) voided the Note and Deed of Trust on March 29, 2010 and all of the Defendant’s 10 claims to the subject property thereafter, the Defendant(s) had twenty (20) days to perform or file I a complaint in court as to a disputed right to Rescission, disclosures or settlement procedures in 12 (d)(2), (d)(3) or §1635 (b) or default in dishonor by non-performance of their contract requirement 13 14 under TILA12 C.F.R. § 226.23, §1635 (b) and the Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation Z. This is 15 what occurred and the Plaintiff seeks recovery of his home and damages. See, a copy of the Note 16 and Deed of Trust incorporated herein by this reference and attached hereto as Exhibits 2, and 3. 17 18 A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTS 19 4. In order for the Defendant(s) alleged lender(s) to receive money from the Federal Reserve 20 Bank(s) from the Bank‘s monetizing of the signature of the Plaintiff on the Loan Application, Note 21 and Deed of Trust the Defendant(s) enter into a commercial contract with the Federal Reserve Bank 22 23 and United States to perform obligations, one of which is 12 C.F.R. § 226.23 the Plaintiffs Right of 24 Rescission, which they did not honor in this case and just like in any law suit, which is in reality a 25 contract agreement between the opposing parties and court, if the served party receiving the contract 26 27 offer “summons” fails or refuses to respond, default occurs after 20 days in federal law or contract 28 law under the U.C.C. Therefore, since the Defendant(s) failed to perform their obligations within the Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 6 (d)(2) twenty (20) day period and failed to file a claim or dispute in court they defaulted in dishonor of the contract and forever gave up any claim or defense thereafter. From that time the Defendant(s) did not have standing to foreclose either judicially or non-judicially or to file any court action including the subject unlawful detainer and eviction on September 6, 2012 of Affiant, Plaintiff and his rental tenants. See, “NOFICE TO VACATE”:08/08/2012 and “WRIT 07/25/2012 Exhibit A. THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATION TO SUE TO ENFORCE THE VOIDED NOTE AND DEED OF TRUST; IT IS RES JUDICATA AFTER THE 20 DAY PERFORMANCE PERIOD UPON THE CREDITOR’S DEFAULT 10 5 The Supreme Court’s Decision states on page 26-27 “When Congress wishes to limit the il time for filing suit by means of a statute of repose, it does so expressly.” Jn referring to the time 12 limits in 12 C.F.R. § 226.23 or 15 U.S.C. §1635, “Jt talks not of a suit’s commencement but of a 13 14 right’s duration, which it addresses in terms so straightforward as to render any limitation on the 15 time for seeking a remedy superfluous.” Therefore, any statute of limitation is in reference to 16 damages caused by the creditor’s violation of the law. The matter of the voided Note and Deed of 17 18 Trust is not for review by a court and therefore not subject to a statute of limitation, it does not 19 automatically un-void itself if a suit is not filed within a period of time. The “ringing of the bell 20 occurred by the mailing of notice of Loan Rescission which automatically voided the Note and Deed 21 of Trust and thereafter there is no “un-ringing of the bell it is not subject to dispute or court review 22 23 or a statute of limitation that somehow reverses the “ringing of the bell and restores the Note and 24 Deed of Trust to its former un-voided status. Also, the issue of disclosures either provided or not 25 provided by the Defendant(s) cannot be used to “un-ring the bell” or restore the voided Note and 26 27 Deed of Trust after the 20 day performance period and Defendant(s) failure to file a dispute in court - ~ 28 within that time period. Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint/ Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 7 THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION JANUARY 13, 2015 STARTS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 6. The Supreme Court’s Decision January 13, 2015 starts the statute of limitation for damages and other claims for relief subject to tolling from the date of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Larry D. JESINOSKL, et wx Petitioners v. COUNTRY WIDE HOME LOANS, INC.), et al. on January 13, 2015. THE ONE YEAR TIME TO FILE ACTION FOR DAMAGES WAS COMPLIED WITH 7 The Loan Rescission was delivered on March 29, 2010, which automatically voided the 10 Loan Note and Deed of Trust on March 29, 2010, the Defendant’s had no standing to bring 11 12 any court action twenty (20) days later after their non-performance on April 17, 2010. 13 However, the Defendant(s) ignored that fact and waited just over a year before filing their 14 Unlawful Detainer on April 1, 2011, thinking that the Plaintiff lost his Right to enforce Rescission, 15 16 however, that one year statute only applies to the Plaintiff seeking damages caused by the 17 Defendant’s non-compliance with their obligations under 226.23 (d)(2) and (d)(3) or § 1635, it 18 did not relieve Defendant(s) of the effect of (d)(1) or § 1635 in automatically voiding the 19 20 security instrument Deed of Trust, Loan Note, and their standing to foreclose or file a court 21 action after of April 17, 2010. And, it did not relieve Defendant(s) of the one year statute for 22 Plaintiff to bring an action for damages because the date of occurrence of the violation by 23 Defendant(s) was April 5, 2011, the date of posting service of the unlawful detainer. Thereafter, 24 25 Plaintiff(s) preserved the one year statute under 15 U.S.C. §1635, §1640 by filing an answer to 26 Defendant(‘s) unlawful detainer and a demand for a jury trial on April 18, 2011, and a long series of 27 filings and oppositions to Defendant’s motions for summary judgment without effect, due to serious 28 Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 8 conflicts of interest in the state court, which ultimately forced Plaintiff to remove the Defendant’s Unlawful Detainer case CLJ 203244 to theUnited States District Court, Northern District of California case C11-04687 Ics on September 21, 2011 and again on January 4, 2012 and to file a complaint in that U.S. Court, Case Number c: 12-0056 EMC against the Defendant(s) in an effort to stop the unlawful eviction and taking of the Plaintiff(‘s) home by the Defendant(s). See, the “NOTICE Of CANCELATION OF LOAN & AUTOMATIC VOIDING OF THE DEED OF TRUST” dated March 29, 2010 and Proof of Delivery, incorporated herein by this reference and 10 attached hereto as Exhibit 4. il THE BANKS AND COURTS USE INCORRECT CASE LAW 12 TO BLOCK LOAN RESCISSION 13 8 During this time period the lower court’s produced incorrect case law that misconstrued the 14 plainly stated loan rescission law and its clear effect in automatically voiding the contract note and 15 16 security instrument upon notice. These incorrect case laws created a non-existent need for 17 Plaintiff(s) to perfect the loan rescission by a misconstrued requirement that the consumer file a suit 18 within the three year period provided for the consumer to perfect or obtain the right to a loan 19 rescission, which was totally opposite of the plain language and intent of the law. The Defendant’s 20 21 and the U.S. District Court in Plaintiff's MIKELS v. U.S. BANK, Case c: 12-0056 EMC, used the 22 lower appellate court’s wrong decisions which made it appear that it was Plaintiff's obligation to 23 bring suit to exercise Plaintiff’s right to Loan Rescission within three years from the date of 24 25 consummation of the loan July 11, 2007 no later that July 11, 2010, claiming that Plaintiff's 26 complaint c: 12-0056 EMC filed on January 4, 2012 was over the three year period and too late and 27 therefore could not exercise loan rescission (although the court acknowledged a timely notice of 28 Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint/ Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 9 loan rescission) however dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice by order of Edward M. Chin on April 12, 2012, D.C. Doc. 42, on the basis of a complaint filed after the three year period which was incorrectly defined as a statute of limitation, when plainly it was not. As the Supreme Court stated in JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., there was no statute of limitation (repose) for the consumer to file suit for loan rescission, only a time period for exercising the right. Any requirement for the consumer to bring an action to obtain a loan rescission is non-existent and would nullify the law’s intent of an automatic voiding, just as in any 3 day right 10 to cancel any contract. The dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint was a gross error that the Supreme 11 Court corrected in JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners y. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. and 12 which nullifies the grounds the dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff's federal complaint and voids it. 13 14 Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision corrected the law used in the order of dismissal which in 15 effect nullified the Order by Edward M. Chin of April 12, 2012. 16 PLAINTIFF DID APPEAL THE DISTRICT COURT ORDER, HOWEVER THE 17 SUPREME COURT’S DECISION OVERRULED THE APPEAL 18 9, Plaintiff did appeal the Edward M. Chin District Court Order of dismissal of Plaintiff's 19 20 federal complaint but it was never prosecuted because the District Court record had errors in it that 21 the Plaintiff requested corrected which was never done. The court secretary filed a document stating 22 that Plaintiff needed to make a motion to correct the record however never mailed the notice to the 23 Plaintiff which the court record showed no proof of service, which is documented. The Appeals 24 25 court issued an order of dismissal and the Plaintiff voided it by non-consent, therefore the appeal is 26 still lawfully standing by the Appeal Court’s Default. However, the Supreme Court’s Decision in 27 JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC makes the Plaintiff's 28 Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 10 Appeal moot because it intervened with a correction of the error by the Chin Court as referenced. A TOLLING WAS CREATED BY THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION 10. Under §1640 “any action under this section may be brought in any United States district court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation” therefore the Supreme Court’s decision created: 1, A tolling of one year after the Supreme Court’s decision January 13, 2015 for the Plaintiff to file a complaint for damages under §1640 for Defendant’s violations of (TILA), 10 12 C.F.R. § 226,U.S.C, 15 U.S.C. §1635. 11 2, There is no time limit to file a complaint for a claim enforcing Loan Rescission and 12 voiding of the Loan Note and Deed of Trust effective March 29, 2010 and res judicata 13 14 (precluded from any court review) effective April 17, 2010, because the Defendant’s never 15 had any lawful or legal right to foreclose, evict or take possession of Plaintiff's property 16 after their default in dishonor April 17, 2010 and the Defendant’s were precluded from 17 18 filing any action in court due to their lack of standing from April 17, 2010 thereafter. 19 3. There is no time limit for Plaintiff to file for an unlawful detainer to evict the occupants 20 and Defendant(s) from his property and home located at 115 15 Avenue, San Mateo, 21 California, because the Defendant(s) never had lawful or legal ownership of the property 22 23 and are unlawfully occupying it since September 6, 2012 until present the present date, by 24 trespass by the use of unlawful actions in the state and federal courts, which was declared 25 so by the Supreme Court’s Decision in JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. 26 27 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC on January 13, 2015. 28 4. Defendant filed a complaint in federal court for enforcement of the voided Note and Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County i Deed of Trust on January 4, 2012 within one year of the occurrence of the Defendant’s filing of their unlawful detainer on April 1, 2011, the date it became known that the Defendant’s were not honoring the Loan Rescission. And, Plaintiff's federal complaint was dismissed by error of the Chin Court and the Plaintiff Appealed and the Appeals Court errored in dismissing the Appeal without providing for a corrected record by error of the Court in not serving Plaintiff/Appellant with proper notice and the dismissal was voided by non-consent. However, the Supreme Court’s Decision corrected and made moot the District 10 Court and the Appeals’ Court’s actions, tolled and preserved the time from Plaintiff's 11 federal complaint filing on January 4, 2012 and started the clock running for any of 12 Plaintiff's claims contained herein effective January 13, 2015. 13 14 5. Plaintiff my sue within one year from January 13, 2015 for recovery of damages 15 suffered by Plaintiff under TILA 15 U.S.C. 1640 (a) and (e) caused by the Defendant(s) 16 who violated 226.23 (d)(2), (d)(3) or § 1635, “any creditor who fails to comply with any 17 18 requirement imposed under this part, including any requirement under section 1635 of this 19 title , or part D or E of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such 20 person in an amount equal to the sum of— (1) any actual damage sustained by such person 21 as a result of the failure;” and other damages not shown here. And, “(e) Jurisdiction of 22 23 courts; limitations on actions; Except as provided in the subsequent sentence, any 24 action under this section may be brought in any United States district court, or in any other 25 court of competent jurisdiction, within one year from the date of the occurrence of the 26 27 violation.” Therefore the Plaintiff has one year to file a court action under TILA for 28 damages as stated in 15 U.S. Code § 1640 referenced above. Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint/ Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 12 6. Plaintiff may sue for fraud, breach of contract or other claim with the appropriate statute of limitation period beginning with the date of the Supreme Court’s Decision in JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. January 14, 2015. 1* Claim For Relief Listed Under Claim Five For relief under Loan Rescission TILA, 12 C.F.R. § 226,U.S.C, 15 U.S.C. §1635, §1640, Regulation Z confirmed in the decision of the United States Supreme Court in 135 S.Ct. 790 (2015) 10 Larry D. JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al. No. 13- ll 12 684. Decided January 13, 2015. The return of Plaintiffs property and damages caused by the 13 unlawful acts of Defendant(s). The tolling of the time in which to file an action for damages under 14 TILA ending January 13, 2016. The tolling of time beginning January 2015 the start of the statute of 15 16 limitation applicable to other claims. 17 2" Claim 18 For Breach of Loan Rescission Contract occurred upon unlawful forced eviction and taking of 19 real property by U.S. Bank Defendant, agents, judicial officers and the San Mateo County Sheriff on 20 September 6, 2012. Four year statute of limitation beginning with decision in 135 S.Ct. 790 (2015) 21 Larry D. JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. COUNTRY WIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al. No. 13- 22 23 684.Supreme Court of United States Decided January 13, 2015. No statute of limitation under 24 common law 25 3° Claim 26 27 For Recoupment under common law occurred upon unlawful forced eviction and taking of real 28 property by U.S. Bank Defendant, agents, judicial officers and the San Mateo County Sheriff on Marshali-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 13 September 6, 2012. No statute of limitation. 4" Claim For Trespass Common Law Tort by Defendant(s) trespass onto the real property owned by Plaintiff occurring upon unlawful forced eviction and taking of real property by U.S. Bank Defendant, its agents, Addressee(s)/Respondent(s) judicial officers and the San Mateo County Sheriff on September 6, 2012. No time limit for prosecution of claim under common law. Under statutory claim time is tolled from the decision in 135 S.Ct. 790 (2015) Larry D. JESINOSKI, et ux., 10 Petitioners v. COUNTRY WIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al. No. 13-684.Supreme Court of United 11 States Decided January 13, 2015. 12 13 CLAIM 14 THIS COMPLAINT STATES CLAIMS, FACTS AND EVIDENCE IN AFFIDAVIT FORM AND REQUESTS PROOF OF CLAIMS FROM THE OPPOSITION AND COURT. 15 ANY FACT, CLAIM OR EVIDENCE LEFT STANDING, UN-REBUTTED BY NON- 16 RESPONSE FORMS AN ADMISSION AND ESTABLISHED FACT AND CLAIM THAT IS SECURED BY A SECURITY AGREEMENT AND IS A FINAL JUDGMENT IN A 17 COURT OF RECORD 18 11. ‘Adltressee(s)/Respondent(), you are requested to provide Proof of Claims that would 19 20 rebut the Affiant’s claims stated below or the following allegations, evidence, information and 21 belief will be established as fact by the prima facie evidence of this Affidavit which form a case 22 and court of record: that, the Rights, laws, duties, obligations, claims, evidence, information, 23 teferences, public records and belief contained in this Verified Common Law Complaint and in the 24 25 Affidavit of Marshall-Edward: Mikels below including attached exhibits and in any referenced 26 Affidavits unless rebutted by an opposing affidavit by an individual with personal first hand 27 knowledge signed in ink under penalty of perjury and delivered within the time provided will stand 28 Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 14 as fact and will be final judgment in a Court of Record and secured by a Security Agreement superior to all courts and protected from impairment by Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution for the United States of America 1787-1789 and the Oath of the officers of this Court as fiduciaries to the people/People and Constitution for the United States a Trust Contract. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.” THEREFORE, Provide proof to rebut the information, evidence, allegations and claims 10 herein or it will stand as fact in this Affidavit as a prima facie case in a Court of Record that: 11 12 AFFIDAVIT 13 “Indeed, no more than affidavits are necessary to make the prima 14 facie case.” United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d, 526, 536 (7" Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982 15S 16 1 To all concerned, the undersigned Affiant, Marshall-Edward: Mikels, does solemnly swear, 17 declare and state as follows: 18 2 Affiant is competent to state the matters set forth herein. 19 3 Affiant has personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. 20 21 4. All the facts herein are true, correct and complete, admissible as evidence and if called upon 22 as a witness, Affiant will testify to their veracity. 23 5 I, Marshall-Edward: Mikels am not a corporation or a public entity. 24 25 6. Affiant and Plaintiff do not consent to any presumption used to establish jurisdiction, venue 26 or to impose a corporate identity or citizenship onto Marshall-Edward: Mikels or the Plaintiff (defined 27 in this case as a non-corporate entity private U.S. National) or made a trustee of any trust. The Affiant 28 Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 15 does not consent to any extraneous.agreement, license, certificate, contract or trust agreement that would change his status as a living man and one of the sovereign people/People that is a party and beneficiary to the Constitution for the United States of America 1787-1789, who is a U.S. National and Citizen Sovereign living in the Republic/State of California one of the several states comprising the United States of America without the corporate UNITED STATES or other name, without the District of Columbia/DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, as a U.S. National with unalienable Rights inherent from the Creator and protected by the fiduciary’s Oath of the officers of this court and the 10 Addressee(s)/ Respondent(s) whether a private, public, government, corporate, foreign or domestic 11 entity. 12 CLAIM 13 THAT THE AFFIANT/ PLAINTIFF IS A U.S. NATIONAL POSSESSING UNALIENABLE 14 RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION/TRUST 15 7. Addressee(s)/Respondent(s), you are requested to provide Proof of Claims that would 16 rebut the Affiant’s claims stated below or the following allegations, evidence, information and 17 18 belief will be established as fact by the prima facie evidence of this Affidavit which form a case 19 and court of record: that, by Agreement of the United States/UNITED STATES, the U.S. 20 Department of State, the Secretary of State JOHN F. KERRY Esquire, official Secretary of State of 21 the United States/UNITED STATES, John F. Kerry Individual, the State of California/STATE OF 22 23 CALIFORNIA and the Secured Party Affiant Marshall-Edward: Mikels’ execution on November 16, 24 2015 of a Security Agreement referenced below, the Affiant Marshall-Edward: Mikels is determined 25 to be by established fact a U.S. National / Citizen Sovereign of the Republic / State of California and 26 27 one of the Sovereign people/People party and beneficiary to the Constitution of or for the 28 united/United States of America 1787-1789, the Amendments thereto up to the original lawfully Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 16 ratified December 9, 1812, 13" Amendment and none thereafter, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence 1776 and all Treaties, binding the said parties to a SECURITY AGREEMENT NON-NEGOTIABLE/NON-TRANSFERABLE (15 USSEC Speculation Account) Acct. No. CAFV-UPOC-CORJ CLAIM # 5679, Private/Public Agreement of the parties dated November 16, 2015. The contracting parties are the Secured Party: Marshall-Edward; Mikels and the Addressee(s)/Respondent(s) JOHN F. KERRY Esquire, official Secretary of State of the United States, and John F. Kerry Individual, United States Department of State, The United States/UNITED 10 STATES and its Executives in Official and in Individual Capacity, the franchise subdivisions il thereof including the State of California/STATE OF CALIFORNIA and the San Francisco Passport 12 Agency, its Owners and Executives in Official and Individual Capacity 44123 Mercure Circle P.O. 13 14 Box 1143 Sterling, Virginia 20166 and others that may be added by amendment. The establish 15 Claim of a U.S. National by the Secured Party is memorialized in that Security Agreement as 16 follows: 17 18 “ESTABLISHED CLAIM AND FACT AFFIANT/CLAIMANT/SECURED PARTY IS A U.S. NATIONAL 19 A CITIZEN SOVEREIGN OF THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLIC AND NOT A CITIZEN/NATIONAL OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20 GOVERNMENT CORPORATION AND/OR A 21 14™ AMENDMENT CITIZEN” 22 “25. The Addressee(s)/Respondent(s), failed or refused to provide the requested Proof 23 of Claims that would rebut the Affiant’s claims stated herein therefore the following is established as fact by the prima facie evidence of the Affiant’s Affidavit which form a 24 case and Court of Record: that, on August 17, 2015 Affiant presented a contract offer 25 entitled “APPLICATION FOR U.S. PASSPORT DS-11” to the U.S. Department of State for a passport for a U. S. National and attached an executed Affidavit by Affiant/Secured Party 26 dated August 14, 2015 of “U.S. National” as a Citizen of the California Republic/state as 27 defined above and a birth certificate showing place of mother’s delivery of Claimant/Secured Party. The Affidavit was sworn by Jurat administered and notarized by a 28 California Secretary of State of Notary Valare A. Wiley/VALARE A. WILEY that attested to Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 17 the established fact that Affiant Marshall-Edward: Mikels was/is one of the people/People as a US. National since October 21, 1946 at 12:14 am, by natural delivery from his mother in the Republic of California, City and County of San Francisco. Affiant has made a claim that nullifies any presumption of a franchise or corporate entity based on a “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH” or other document and therefore is not a citizen of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CORPORATION. Affiant has an established claim to a citizen of the California Republic one of the States of the United States of America by delivery from his mother in the Republic of California by parents of U.S. Nationals that were themselves delivered by their mother in the State of Indiana and State of Oklahoma that are foreign states to the District of Columbia United States Government/Corporation and who resided for a time in the United States. Affiant has sworn allegiance to the Constitution for the United States of America as one of the sovereign people/People referenced in the Constitution and a beneficiary thereto and Affiant’s Affidavit attached to his passport contract offer/application that was delivered which stated in part: 10 “6, Effective October 21, 1946 I, Marshall-Edward: Mikels Claimed Secured 11 Party/Creditor/Owner of the Landed Estate MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS / ***-**.8951, 12 CERTIFICATE OF VITAL RECORD CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH ***22 dated OCT 30, 1946 CUSIP No. *****2685, 13 #*44*2684, F****9417 or other number or version of entity name/trusts including all 14 bonds, trusts, property and social security trust(s) funds in connection thereto. Affiant is the Authorized Representative of said entities. Affiant is the beneficiary under a contract and 15 Security Agreement with the United States/UNITED STATES, the State of California/STATE 16 OF CALIFORNIA and all others concerned to be acknowledged and classified as a U.S. National and state citizen of the republic state of California by the established fact of being 17 born in that state by parents that were nationals of the foreign states of Oklahoma and 18 Indiana. Therefore, Affiant is one of the sovereign people born in the republic state of California that is one of the several states comprising the united States of America under 19 Trust of the Constitution of the United States of America 1787-1789, the Bill of Rights and 20 Declaration of Independence 1776, Treaties and trade agreements of the United States of America and therefore not within the United States/UNITED STATES, the District of 21 Columbia or any of its possessions and not a Citizen of United States/UNITED STATES. Therefore, Affiant claims his right to a PASSPORT United States of America under 22 classification as a U.S. national/National under: 23 308 NATIONALS BUT NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH 24 SEC. 308, [8 U.S.C. 1408] Unless otherwise provided in section 301 of this title, the 25 Sollowing shail be nationals, but not citizens of the United States at birth: (2) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents 26 both of whom are nationals, but not citizens, of the United States, and have had a 27 residence in the United States, or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of such person; 28 Marshall-Edward: Mikels and MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS v U.S. BANK N.A. Verified Common Law Complaint / Presentment to Superior Court of the State of California San Mateo County 18 See, a certified copy of the “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH” from the “STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’ dated OCT 30, 1946 REGISTRAR’S NO. 14622 incorporated herein by this reference and attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The above referenced contract Security Agreement is recorded in the records of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California Case No. 3:14-CV -02883 Court Docket No. 14 and in Case No. 14 2879 MEJ MMC Doc..No. 11 & 20 and in Case No. 3:14-CV -02883 KAW-JD, Doc. No. 14 & 20 incorporated herein by this reference.” Therefore, by agreement Marshall-Edward: Mikels is a U.S. National Citizen Sovereign of the Republic State of California that possesses unalienable Rights inherent from the Creator which Rights and Sovereignty are to be recognized and applied to MARSHALL EDWARD MIKELS or any version or abbreviation of the all Cap entity name or Trust by virtue of Marshall-Edward: 10 1 Mikels’ ownership and claim of said name and Trust(s) including all the bonds